Raymond Wold wrote: > On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 11:42 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > >> In fact, this illustrates a wonderful strength of these programs. >> > > Only it's not strength to ignore a move to your benefit,
Who suggested that it was? The strength of MC programs is how they deal with uncertainty, not the fact that there is uncertainty. So what method do you propose that is immune to uncertainty? > when it's > something a 20 kyu human can read out. Nor is it strength when you play > out a dead ladder, no matter if you're behind. > Do you know of an approach that evaluates go positions perfectly? You are attacking the fact that MC programs have errors in their probability estimates but completely ignoring the fact that SO DOES EVERY OTHER EVALUATION FUNCTION. Currently there is no evidence whatsoever that probability estimates are inferior and they are the ones playing the best GO right now, so the burden of proof is on you. It's not enough to simply find games where they played a bad move, unless you can show that other approaches are not as subject to bad moves. - Don > Pure MC will /not/ cure cancer. > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
